§ (1) The Insurance Commissioners may by special order modify the principal Act in its application to persons whose employment is of a casual or intermittent nature, and the employers of such persons, and any such order may apply either generally or to any one or more particular trades or industries or branches thereof and either generally or in any one or more particular localities, and where any such order is restricted to a particular trade or industry or branch thereof in a particular locality, it may extend to other persons if employed in the same class of employment as the persons to whom the order primarily relates.
§ (2) The order may provide for the amounts of the contributions payable by the employer and by the employed contributor respectively, and their payment, recovery and collection in such manner, in such proportions and in respect of such periods as may be specified in the order, and for the apportionment amongst employers of the amounts payable by employers, and may modify and adapt the provisions of the principal Act accordingly, so however 2999 that the employer's contributions shall not exceed sixpence nor the employed contributor's contributions fourpence (or in the case of a woman threepence) in any week, nor, if the contributions are payable day by day, shall the employed contributor's contribution for any day exceed one penny.
§ (3) The provisions of the principal Act as to the laying of regulations before both Houses of Parliament and the proceedings consequent thereon shall apply to special orders made under this section in lieu of the provisions contained in Subsection (2) of Section 113 of the principal Act.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "may" ["The Insurance Commissioners may by Special Order"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
There are several other Amendments in my name which are not strictly consequential upon the Amendment I am now moving. I want to have this treated as a separate question altogether. The other Amendments stand or fall altogether. They are all one hatch with the exception of that which deals with the consultation with an Advisory Committee. I do not want to go over the ground which I travelled over yesterday. I have the greatest respect for the existing body of Insurance Commissioners, but I must say I cannot understand hon. Members, especially those belonging to the Liberal party acquiescing in this enormous increase, Clause by Clause, of the powers of the Commissioners. It is a perfect farce to be bringing in amending Bills to the Insurance Act if you allow the Insurance Commissioners to alter it at their own sweet will whenever they want to do so. If this sort of thing goes on, if we continue to give the Insurance Commissioners those very wide and perfectly immeasurable powers, we shall be, in respect to insurance, living under the widest bureaucracy of any country in the world. I feel very strongly about this. I am not going to make a long speech about it. I think it is a very important question, but, it can be put in a very few words. If we are to go on giving these Insurance Commissioners power after power to do exactly what they like it is absolutely no use for Parliament to legislate about the Insurance Act at all.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI understand the protest of the hon. Gentleman, but I do 3000 not understand how his Amendment can stand without a consequental Amendment. By itself, the Amendment tries to compel the Insurance Commissioners to make various schemes in connection with casual labour. They want to make schemes and they will present schemes. The Clause dealing with that can be explained later on. Without consequential words it is absurd to say that the Insurance Commissioners shall make various schemes, if those schemes prove to be impossible in action.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI certainly wanted to make my protest, and I want also to move my Amendment with regard to consultation with the Advisory Committee.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "may" ["The Insurance Commissioners may by Special Order"], to insert the words "after consultation with the Advisory Committee."
I do not think that the answer the Government gave yesterday is at all satisfactory. It is quite true that it would be very cumbersome to ask the whole of the Advisory Committee to meet very time when some small point had to be discussed, but it seems to me perfectly possible for the Advisory Committee to appoint subcommittees of experts on certain subjects, and that when one of those subjects came up the Commissioners should call upon the one, two or three persons belonging to that particular sub-committee to advise them on the question. I move the Amendment in order to limit the at present practically unlimited powers of the Insurance Commissioners. I think it would be a safeguard if they were obliged to consult the experts on the Advisory Committee before coming to a decision on this very important question of casual labour.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied, as he and also the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson) were satisfied yesterday. I not only promised in general terms, but I promised to see if we could not lay some kind of Paper on the Table of the House showing how the kind of thing that the hon. Member desires may be carried out. The Commissioners have no objection to consulting the Advisory Committee on any subject under the sun, subject to the two conditions which I laid down, of not calling 3001 them together on tiny points, for they are all busy men, and of not necessarily calling the whole Advisory Committee together. Really, the same arguments apply as yesterday. The hon. Member was satisfied yesterday, and I would ask him to be satisfied to-day.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI thought the answer of the Secretary to the Treasury yesterday had substance in it, because obviously you cannot call a large body together to discuss minor points. But this is not a minor point. This is a very different Clause from the one we were discussing yesterday. This is practically to make a new Act applying to casual labour. The Insurance Commissioners, however capable they are, have not the practical knowledge of the work of casual labour from the point of view either of the employer or of the casual labourer. They cannot have. But the Advisory Committee have. There are sitting on the Advisory Committee men accustomed to every class of question which will come up in settling the scheme. While I think my hon. Friend was right yesterday in accepting the assurance of the Secretary to the Treasury that he would find some way whereby minor matters might be considered by Sub-Committees of the Advisory Committee, or some other method, yet I think my hon. Friend will be equally wise in insisting on his Amendment to-day, seeing that it deals with so complicated a matter.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDI would like to draw the attention of Committee first of all to the fact that Sub-section (3) of this Clause compels the Commissioners to lay upon the Table regulations made under the Clause.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDTherefore we have not merely my right hon. Friend's assurance; we have a statutory provision that that must be done. With reference to the guarantee which this Amendment seems to give that the Insurance Commissioners will only draft such orders in and after consultation with experts, I am afraid I take another view. I am not so sure that upon the Advisory Committee you have exactly the sort of people with whom the Commissioners should consult. This is purely an industrial question. I do not know anything about it, but I think the Com- 3002 missioners would be very well advised if they made their orders as elastic as the conditions of the labour contemplated to be dealt with under this Clause. They might issue one scheme to apply to Liverpool; they would find that that scheme would not apply to the London Docks; they might find that neither the Liverpool nor the London scheme would apply to Glasgow; when they came to Hull another kind of scheme would be necessary; and so on. I think that whilst the administration of this very complicated question is still in an experimental stage it would be advisable for us to give the Commissioners to understand that in making these orders they should not confine themselves to the members of the Advisory Committee, but should consult all the interests concerned. Certainly we who are present in this Committee will keep a very close watch upon every scheme laid on the Table in the House of Commons udder this provision, and if we find—I am speaking for my own friends of course that any of those schemes do not receive the consent of the people concerned we shall certainly take the Parliamentary method open to us to oppose such schemes. Therefore I think we shall safeguard ourselves much more if we do not, as proposed by this Amendment, confine the consultation to Members of the Advisory Committee, but put the responsibility upon the Commissioners to produce a scheme which will have the approval of the two sections concerned—Labour and Capital. Otherwise, on the floor of the House of Commons, we shall certainly challenge the schemes and compel the Commissioners to produce evidence why they have drafted them.
§ Sir P. MAGNUSPersonally, I think it would be advisable to insert these words. I can see nothing in the argument just adduced to prevent the Commissioners from consulting other persons than those on the Advisory Committee. The Amendment simply says that they shall consult the members of the Advisory Committee, but it does not in any way preclude them from consulting, as I suppose they would feel themselves bound to consult, other experts, if they were unable to get from the Advisory Committee the information and advice which they were seeking. Section 58 of the original Act, which refers to the Advisory Committee, was evidently inserted with a view to requiring the Commissioners before drawing up any regulations to consult the Advisory 3003 Committee. The terms are very explicit. It does not say that the Insurance Commissioners may, but that
The Insurance Commissioners shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act appoint an Advisory Committee—"—For what purpose?—for the purpose of giving the Insurance Commissioners advice and assistance in connection with the making and altering of regulations under this part of the Act.Further than that, the Advisory Committee must comprise representatives of associations of employers. Therefore I take it that the Commissioners would have every opportunity, by consulting with the Advisory Committee, of ascertaining The view of employers in particular districts with respect to any regulations that they might be able to draw up. And it seems to me only reasonable that these words should be placed in this Clause in order to call attention to the importance of Clause 58. There is nothing whatever in the words that are here introduced or even in the words of Clause 58, which compel the Commissioners to consult the whole of the Advisory Committee. They can call together as many as they think necessary to give them the particular advice and assistance which they require, and if that is not the case it only shows how badly the original Act is drawn up, if it would compel the Commissioners on every point on which they require advice and assistance to call together all the members of the Advisory Committee. If the Financial Secretary can assure us that he will be able to introduce words that will make it necessary in this respect and other respects that the Commissioners shall summon such members of the Advisory Committee as will be capable of giving them advice on the question of drawing up regulations, I think we may be satisfied with such assurance.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe saddest part of this discussion is the amount of time that we are wasting over it.
§ Mr. MASTERMANNo; because if I did accept it, it would produce the very result to which hon. Members object. In 3004 any scheme dealing with dock labour, in Bootle or in Plymouth, it would be necessary to bring up the whole of the Advisory Committee and men from Ireland and Scotland to deal with it. I think I met the hon. Member opposite very fairly, and he ought to realise, if I may say so with respect, that I have met him fairly on this and other questions. I promise that we will lay before Parliament some arrangement that would enable us without bringing together the whole body of the Advisory Committee to provide that the representatives of the special interests concerned are consulted on the subject. That was a offer which I thought was accepted yesterday and I hope the Committee will not persist in the demand made by this Amendment.
§ Mr. GWYNNEIt seems to me that if ever there was a case for consulting the Advisory Committee, this is one. It is a matter of great importance; it is not a matter which should be done in a hurry; it means time and it is really a matter of making new Clauses in the Act. I cannot imagine why the right hon. Gentleman is so much against the Advisory Committee. He is chairman of that body; he is not chairman and has no official position in connection with the Commissioners. It is quite evident he does not seem to have much confidence in his own body. Why the Advisory Committee should be consulted is this: In regard to unemployment the conditions are very varied, and we should have the opinion of various districts. Why they cannot call up the members of the Advisory Committee who know and have experience of certain classes of labour I cannot understand. There is another reason and it is this: If we are going to have these provisions and requirements made, then if the Advisory Committee is consulted we have the advantage of having more publicity and less privacy. The Commissioners are in the happy position of making any regulations they like without giving any reason. If we have the Advisory Committee there is much more publicity and we know more about what is happening. The hon. Member for Leicester said that we will have these regulations laid upon the Table of the House. Surely he must be aware that when they are laid upon the Table, we can only discuss them after eleven o'clock, and I would like to ask him, is he satisfied with that opportunity for discussion which we are afforded downstairs?
Mr. GEORGE HAMILTONI should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he lays these proposals upon the Table, if it will be compulsory upon the Insurance Commissioners to consult the Advisory Committee under them?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI said I will consider that proposal; I have no objection to consulting anyone. What I am trying to prevent the Commissioners from doing is spending £200 every time.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI very much dislike withdrawing the Amendment, but as there are important new Clauses coming up later on, involving important discussion, and after what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I will not press the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. RONALD M'NEILLI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "Special" ["the Insurance Commissioners may by Special Order modify"], and to insert instead thereof the word "Provisional."
This Amendment proposes to substitute procedure by Provisional Order instead of Special Order. I would point out the extraordinary roundabout way in which under the Clause as it stands, the actual proposals of the Bill are embodied. The Clause says, "The Commissioners may by Special Order modify the principal Act." The procedure by Special Order is laid down in Section 113 of the principal Act combined with the Ninth Schedule, and under the operation of that Clause 113 and the Ninth Schedule there are rather elaborate provisions made for giving notice to people who may object, and for holding inquiries as the case may be; and the length of time that each order has to lie upon the Table before it becomes law is thirty days. Therefore, when the Clause refers to Special Order, primâ facie one would imagine that is the procedure to be adopted, but when we turn to Sub-section (3) we find that is not so, and that Special Order in this particular case is not to be Special Order, but is to be governed by Section 65, which deals with the power of the Commissioners to make ordinary regulations, and under that Section a Special Order, so called in this Section we are now discussing, shall be treated as if it was a mere regulation which shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and shall then be treated as if it was included 3006 in the Act, and after twenty-one days become operative unless an Address has been presented. As my hon. Friend remarked just now in answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, the procedure by Address is a very unsatisfactory method of Parliamentary control, at all events at the present day. Everyone knows the opportunity of discussing such matters is limited, and it is very difficult after eleven o'clock to get people interested, and such Parliamentary control really becomes farcical. On the other hand, procedure by Provisional Order is perfectly well known and is familiar to everybody. It is the method by which municipal matters are usually dealt with, and what I suggest is where you have such very wide powers conferred upon the Commissioners as is proposed to be given them by this Clause, it is very necessary that there should be rigid Parliamentary control and supervision over the changes you make, seeing they practically amount in every case to an amending Act of Parliament. The question of casual labour dealt with by this Clause has been all along recognised as one of the most important and difficult problems with which the Insurance scheme has to deal. And it is very desirable that the Commissioners should not be able to deal with the whole of this problem and to modify the proportion of the contribution from employer and employed, and in the case of certain classes of casual labour turn it into a non-contributory scheme by such means. I do submit in such circumstances we ought to keep in the hands of Parliament a greater and a more effective power of supervising, such as procedure by Provisional Order would secure in the House of Commons.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)No one can make any complaint of the solicitude of hon. Members both on that side and on this that there should be effective control, but I hope that I may persuade the hon. Member not to press for Provisional Order procedure. First of all, the Provisional Order would not take effect until it were confirmed by Parliament, and, if there were any opposition, the Provisional Order, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, would have to be referred to a Select Committee, or to a Committee upstairs, and that would make Clause 7 practically useless. I do not think I put it too highly when I say that it would take the greater part of a year to get it through, and supposing 3007 Parliament were not sitting, I think I am right in saying that a single objector could prevent the thing going forward. I may add that the whole procedure would not only be slow, but also costly. How would the Commissioners go to work in devising a scheme to be embodied in the Special Order under Clause 7? My right hon. Friend has laid it down that, of course, they would consult closely the interests affected. That would be their obvious duty. Then they would proceed under Schedule 9 of the original Act, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. They would publish notice of their proposal to make an Order. They would publish notice of the place where the Order could be obtained. They would publish and state the time, not less than twenty-one days, within which objection could be taken. They would have to consider legitimate objections. They are not compelled to make Amendments, but where they do not amend or withdraw any draft order to which any objection has been made, then, unless the objection is either withdrawn or appears to them to be frivolous, they shall, before making the Order, direct an inquiry to be held.
§ Mr. R. M'NEILLThe Ninth Schedule, as I understand this Clause, has nothing whatever to do with this point.
§ Dr. MACNAMARACertainly it has.
§ Mr. R. M'NEILLIt is only brought into operation by virtue of Section 113.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAWe are dealing with the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 113. That is abrogated in favour of procedure by regulation, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman properly referred in Section 65. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the Bill, he will see that the procedure under the Ninth Schedule has to be followed, because Sub-section (1) of Section 113 is not modified. I say that they would have to direct an inquiry to be held and
The Authority may appoint a competent and impartial person to hold an inquiry with regard to any draft order, and to report to them thereon.(2) The inquiry shall be held in public, and any objector and any other person who, in the opinion of the person holding the inquiry, is affected by the draft order, may appear at the inquiry, either in person or by counsel, solicitor, or agent.3008 In order to meet any possible objection as to the thoroughly impartial character of the inquiry, hon. Members will observe that we propose to amend the procedure under the 9th Schedule. Instead of the Commissioners appointing the person who shall hold the inquiry, we propose to ask the Lord Chancellor, so that the Commissioners may be entirely detached from this part of their proceedings. Thereafter we proceed, under Section 65, as the hon. Member pointed out—The Insurance Commissioners may make regulations … and any regulations so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and shall have effect … providedand so on, the Address to be moved within twenty-one days. I think, therefore, that everything is safeguarded. If there is any question whatever about the Commissioners not appointing the right persons for some reason or other, we have safeguarded that by saying that the Lord Chancellor shall appoint them.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSIs this Amendment bringing in Section 65, instead of Section 113, intended to reduce the time during which objection may be taken in Parliament from thirty to twenty-one days?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAIt would have that effect.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSIs that the only effect it would have, and, if not, what is the object of it? It is important.
§ Mr. MASTERMANSupposing a scheme were passed through this October, and no, objection were taken, it would enable the scheme to come into operation.
§ Mr. MASTERMANYes; but it can be challenged afterwards when the House is sitting.
§ Mr. NIELDI cannot understand why this cumbrous machinery which involves, an Address to the House should be sustained here. The Government must have forgotten that only quite lately in the Trade Boards Act they provided for the fixing of minimum wages in a trade or branch of a trade by holding inquiries and making Provisional Orders. I and one or two of my colleagues have only just finished an examination of the earlier 3009 Act which seeks to enforce Provisional Orders. Now for the first time, the Board of Trade has come to Parliament by Provisional Order, tsking for sanction to a series of trades being incorporated in the Schedule, and we have had an opportunity of giving that security to the public which the public demands, of being heard before what is called a Hybrid Committee of the House by counsel, and the matter has been adjusted perfectly satisfactorily, the Order has been confirmed, and the Bill will go through. I cannot see why these should not be grouped in the same way. Make your orders, and then, having got a group of orders, apply for confirmation as in the case of the Minimum Wages Act. I venture to think that is a far safer method from the point of view of the public at large and of those concerned than the cumbrous proposals you have here.
§ Mr. R. M'NEILLI entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said, but, at the same time, I admit that the right hon. Gentleman has removed a great deal of the objection I felt, and, with the leave of the Committee, I would like to withdraw.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON(who had given notice of an Amendment in Subsection (1), after the word "persons" ["in its application to persons"] to insert the words "every person"): The whole of the Amendments standing in my name, and of which this is the first, stand or fall together. I have been thinking them over very carefully indeed, and I have come to the conclusion that it is not quite fair to ask the Committee to decide upon a constructive scheme, which is so complicated, and of which, of course, they have not had very long notice. I could hardly expect the Government, even if they were in favour of such a scheme, to adopt one so very complicated without further consideration, and I especially do not want to take up the time of the Committee. I have thought it over very carefully, and I do not propose to move my Amendments here now, but I should like to make it a condition of not moving that we do have further opportunity of discussing the question of casual labour either here or in the House.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAWhat do you mean—on this Bill?
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONYes, on this Bill—a further opportunity of discussing casual labour and of finding out from the Government, if possible, what sort of regulations are going to be made. If I can get that promise in some form or other I will not press any of these Amendments. They all stand or fall together.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI cannot promise anything in the House, and I do not know about a new Clause, but I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to have a general discussion now. If the hon. Gentleman will formally move his Amendments, my hon. Friend will state the intentions of the Government, and perhaps we can get Clause 7 before we adjourn for lunch.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI think that is a very reasonable suggestion.
§ The CHAIRMANIt is necessary to have some Motion before the Committee.
§ Mr. GOULDINGWould it not be better to have the discussion on the Clause itself?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAYes, I think so.
§ Mr. W. PEARCEIs my Amendment, providing that the employed contributor's contribution for any day shall not exceed 1d., out of order? I am trying to make the provision mandatory, because it is evident that the Clause is intended to cover other situations than the daily contribution. I put it down in the hope of eliciting a general discussion. It having now been decided there shall be a discussion at the end of the Clause, I would like to know if the Clause covers the provisions for others than those people who pay day by day. There has been a pool established in Liverpool under the main Act, and I think the Clause would work much simpler if my words were accepted. As drawn, it principally apparently meets the case of London, and I feel bound to say that, amongst employers generally, there is a vast amount of apprehension about the supposed intention of the Government to rely upon the employers' pool in London. Every authority I have consulted considers this would be absolutely impossible and unworkable.
§ The CHAIRMANMay I make an appeal to the hon. Member? It is the general desire of the Committee that the discussion should be taken on the Motion 3011 that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, and any expectation of the Government accepting this Amendment must prejudice that discussion.
§ Mr. W. PEARCEVery well, I do not move.
§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "provide for the amount of" and insert instead thereof the words "make provision as to the amount of the employed rate and for."ߞ[Dr. Macnamara.]
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI beg to move at the end of Sub-section (3) to add the words,
Provided that in lieu of the inquiry as regards any draft order under the said Section 113, there shall be substituted for the purposes of this Section an inquiry to be held by one or more competent and impartial persons to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the demand (made in the prescribed manner) of the person making the objection to the draft order." I have already explained why we put in the Lord Chancellor, and I think the proposal will meet with the approval of the Committee generally.
§ Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI have now to move "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Perhaps the Committee will allow me, at the suggestion of my right hon. Friend, to make a general statement as to the aims and purposes of the Government. The Committee, of course, recognise that we have reached one of the most difficult, if not the most difficult, of the problems of National Insurance—the endeavour to bring casual and intermittently employed persons within the field of insurance. The problem is very difficult, and when we originally devised the scheme of insurance, I think we might have been tempted to throw our hands up in despair, and to exclude these people. It would have saved a lot of trouble, but, in my opinion, it would have been cowardly, because just where the problem is most difficult—where it is most difficult to bring these people into the field of insurance—there the need of the benefits, as far as their wives and children are concerned, is almost acute. We have done our best in the original Act, and I am glad to say that in certain localities it has been found possible to 3012 adapt the provisions of the original Act without much difficulty. South Wales and Liverpool are examples of the application of the original Act, which, if by no means perfect, do show that no small amount of success has been attained in pursuing the effort to include casual labour. I should like, if I may, to pay testimony to the good sense of employers and employed and to their public spirit in having carried the work as far as they have done. The problem is one of very great difficulty, and I think we ought to be grateful to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), and to all who have endeavoured to bring their contribution to the common effort at, solution. My only excuse—my only justification for presuming to deal with this for a moment or two, is that I have most gladly spent no little time, for a long period past, in consultation with hon. Friends in the House, and with a great many people outside, to see if this particular difficulty cannot be surmounted. One conclusion has emerged conspicuously to my mind, and that is that no one hard and fast scheme can be made applicable to the needs and industries of all localities.
This is our purpose. We propose a general empowering Clause, under which the Commissioners may frame schemes applicable to particular industries and particular localities, and in such schemes may make provision as to the amount of the employed rate, and may prescribe the method of collection, with this proviso that the employer's contribution shall not exceed 6d., and that the employed contributor's contribution shall not exceed 4d. in the case of men, or 3d. in the case of women in any one week, nor, if the contributions are payable, day by day, shall the employed contributor's contribution exceed 1d. I think the hon. Member for Limehouse overlooked the proviso when he thought it necessary to put down the Amendment which he has now withdrawn—
Nor, if the contributions are payable day by day shall the employed contributor's contribution on any day exceed 1d.We provide for complete elasticity of method, and there is room for a considerable variation of plans. We have heard criticisms this morning to the effect that this is another instance of tyrannical bureaucracy which is endeavouring to legislate over the head of the House of Commons. Do we look like tyrannical bureaucrats? If any hon. Member opposite asserts that we do, then he is suffer- 3013 ing from an optical illusion. We are not tyrannical bureaucrats. I, personally, dislike bureaucratic methods, but they are sometimes inevitable. What can you do here? You can put into this Bill a hundred and one different schemes, and it is quite possible to do that, but what we do find is, that we are bound to define the limit of financial obligation of the employers and employed person, while in the original Act we define the return in benefits which the employed person will get. For the rest, the precise scheme must be left to Special Order, and the procedure which I have described sufficiently secures full publicity for our purpose. Due notice must be given. There will be full opportunity for challenging criticism on the final machinery set out under the regulation in Clause 65 for annulling and setting aside a scheme if hardship, unsuitability, or inapplicability can be shown. Surely this gives all that reason and common sense, and a solicitude that injustice may not be done, can demand.Generally, this is what we hope and expect. The discussion of schemes is a matter for the future. We simply empower these good people to put their heads together, and see if they can devise a scheme. What we hope is this. First, that it may be possible to prevent the practice of compelling a man, in order to get a day's work or a week's work, to stamp his card with his employer's contribution as well as his own. We hope it may be possible to prevent that, and we hope it may be possible to prevent a man having to pay 4d. if he only gets a chance of one or two days' work during the week. We hope also it may be possible to adapt the original provisions of the Act in such a way as to secure full benefits for these poor people, many of whom, I admit, find it difficult under the original Act to secure those benefits. We may not entirely succeed. I do not want to put it too high, but I think with the hearty goodwill and co-operation of everybody—and we are entitled to demand that we—may do something to remove some of the difficulties which have arisen in the attempt to solve one of the most difficult problems that confront us in bringing insurance to casual and intermittently employed persons.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTAs the right hon. Gentleman is aware, this question particularly affects persons employed casually in various kinds of agricultural and horticultural labour. Personally, I am quite 3014 satisfied with the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given, provided he sees that the Advisory Committees, with rural representatives upon them, are consulted before this regulation, having been laid on the Table, can have the effect of law. There is room, no doubt, for a good deal of criticism, and the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the way in which the Commissioners differentiate between one kind of employment and another. There is a good deal of serious commentary upon their mode of treating this question—commentary coming from Lancashire particularly, where there is a very large amount of casual labour, especially on the part of women and children. It is very difficult to understand the principle upon which the Commissioners, so far, have differentiated between one kind of labour and another. For instance, they have exempted altogether persons engaged in such occupations as flower pulling and onion-peeling. They have treated somewhat differently 'those engaged in the hop and potato-picking, while those who come largely from Ireland and are engaged in potato-raising are treated differently altogether. Considering the immense powers the Commissioners have, I think we must agree, in fairness to those persons employed, that when the regulations are laid on the Table there shall be an opportunity for those who represent these interests, and for the Advisory Committees, to discuss them.
§ Mr. NEWTONI listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech with amazement. I take it that the business of this Committee is to correct the faults which have been discovered in the working of the Insurance Act. Instead of attempting to do that, the right hon. Gentleman comes down here, and asks us to give complete elasticity of method to somebody else. I think that is a very unsatisfactory position. The right hon. Gentleman asks how can we put into an Act of Parliament 101 schemes? That, of course, is a difficulty, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman and his Commissioners might have had ready for us some schemes dealing with some of these trades, areas, and industries which we might have looked into at the time we were handing over to them these powers. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I feel it is not a part of my duty to give a blank cheque to any body of gentlemen. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend, in drawing up different regulations for persons employed in the agricultural industry, 3015 the Commissioners are causing a very great deal of confusion. Surely it would have been possible for the Commissioners to have prepared some scheme, so that we could have had greater confidence in entrusting these very wide powers to them. I am not suggesting that the Committee should undertake the enormous work of providing for every class and variety of labour, but I do want, in very moderate language, to express the dissatisfaction I feel that we are now to hand over unlimited powers to the Commissioners.
§ Mr. PEARCEI dislike giving a blank Cheque just as much as the hon. Member who has just spoken, but after a full inquiry into the matter I have come to the same conclusion as my right hon. Friend that it is impossible to embody all these specific remedies in a Clause of this kind. I came to that conclusion with much regret. I made many attempts myself, and in consultation with my hon. Friends, to get something out into the Bill to meet all conceivable cases, and there are many great grievances in this respect, particularly in the East End of London. I will not repeat them now, because they were exceedingly well stated by my right hon. Friend, but I want him and the Commissioners to avoid two things. Speaking as an employer, I do hope that they will go in for simplicity, and avoid trouble. I am sure that employers would prefer to pay rather more for a simple plan than pay less for a complicated and troublesome plan. I want to warn the right hon. Gentleman against any attempt to establish an employers' pool in the County of London. I have seen most of the people who are considered the best authorities in London on this subject, and their one opinion is that an employers' pool in London is an absolute impossibility. Although these wide powers are being given to the Commissioners, I do hope that they will not embark upon a scheme of that sort, because I am sure it will only give trouble to everyone concerned.
§ Mr. G. H. ROBERTSI think hon. Members will agree that Clause 7 is an attempt to deal with a problem which bristles with difficulties on all hands. I think the procedure contemplated by this Clause is the correct one. It is quite impossible for the Commissioners to submit schemes to be discussed by this Committee, and to be incorporated in a Bill. 3016 Elasticity must be the essential principle in dealing with casual labour. As has already been indicated, modified schemes will be required to meet the varying difficulties of different parts of the country, and, of course, an essential feature also of the success of any such scheme must be a general acquiescence on the part of the various bodies concerned. Therefore, I feel it would be extremely unwise to attempt to give schemes of this nature a statutory character. From the point of view of the casual labourer, I think the Clause goes far enough. I have just one apprehension in regard to it. I feel that this Clause is not going to achieve the purpose everybody has in view of keeping the casual labourer in benefit. That is the real purpose we have to aim at. I must say, however, that it will allow us to get to know the problem intimately. We shall understand its dimensions better, and when the casual labourers' contributions have been divided up into sevenpences we shall know how many are excluded from benefit, and what is necessary to keep them in benefit. We accept this proposal simply as an experiment, and we feel sure the ultimate result must be that some State assistance must be given to this large class of casual labour in order that they may have the benefits of the Act which are denied to them, owing to circumstances over which they have no control. My colleagues and myself accept this Clause as one of an experimental character, which will, later on, enable us to apply further consideration to the question.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONSpeaking from the point of view of the workers in the East End of London, this is the most important Clause in the Amending Bill. I do not hesitate to say that the Act has worked very great hardship in East London. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Pearce) stated his opinion quite so clearly to-day as I have known him state it down below. The question is whether the experience which is going to be gained under the scheme put forward by the Government will be subject to proper review by the House of Commons, or whether we are, once and for all, surrendering any power of amending the principal Act in regard to casual labour. The memorandum issued by the Government in regard to the Bill states:—
The proposed procedure by Special Order secures that the fullest opportunity for discussion shall be afforded to persons interested before any scheme under 3017 the Clause is put into operation. Under the Ninth Schedule to the Act a special Order cannot come into force until it has been published in draft for not less than 21 days in a manner calculated to bring the proposals which it embodies to the notice of the persona affected.Does that mean that there will be any opportunity hereafter, except on the production of an amending Bill, to review the conditions of casual labour in this country.
§ Mr. MASTERMANCertainly. I think that was explained, and was accepted, by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. The hon. Member for Mile End was not here.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONI was unable to be here. I want to point out that at present the whole of the attempt to deal with casual labour satisfactorily in London has broken down. The pooling schemes are not applicable to London, and in the Insurance Blue Book, in dealing with the administration of the Act during last year, no case is given from London, nor is any scheme explained under which any part of this problem has been dealt with. The whole of the special schemes adopted and explained in the report of the Commission have been carried out in provincial towns and cities of the size of Liverpool, but they have not been applied, and to my mind are not applicable, to London. The process of the decasualization of labour has been carried out pretty drastically in East London, and it has been an immense hardship to the people there. I daresay hon. Members who are sitting on the Back Bench opposite are in favour of decasualization, but even they must have heard a good deal of the hardship done in these cases to individuals and to particular families by this rapid process of decasualization. It has not made the working of the Act any smoother in the parts of London given over to casual labour, and here we are surrendering specific Amendments to allow these schemes to be brought forward. What guarantee have we that any scheme for dealing with casual labour in London has ever even been considered by the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman has not suggested anything in this direction. It is true that he has referred to the pooling arrangement adopted in provincial seaports. They may be very well adapted to those places.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAIt would be against the genius of this Clause if I were to come here with a cut and dried scheme, because that is a matter for consultation with the parties interested.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONIs there not too much genius in the Bill, and too little information given? We are trusting to the genius of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. What we want is something to go upon, in order to be able to deal with the questions one is likely to be asked in the future as to the working of the Act. We ask for bread and are given a stone. Although the elasticity and adaptation in particular cases are made the essence of the Bill, still let us take the case of the London Docks, which is a great trade centre, and where an enormous amount of casual labour is employed. Surely some means could have been suggested which might be adopted or considered for carrying out schemes under this Clause. Nothing has been said upon that. Casual labour is left exactly where it has been for the last year—in an absolute state of chaos and hardship. I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite who speak for labour should have been content to accept the position that no proposal or suggestion of a scheme was put forward in the Bill, and should simply say that they believe the elasticity of the Clause will provide for all these things in future. I am not content myself, and am bound to make a protest. I see that the friendly societies themselves have made a protest. I hold in my hand a report of an interview in which the secretary of the Prudential Approved Societies says that there has been great hardship in the working of the provisions of the Act with regard to casual labour, and that he hopes that there might be some amendment. We have no security that there is to be any real amendment where the cases press hardest. We have had a suggestion that pooling arrangements might be made. I do not believe that pooling arrangements can be satisfactorily made in London. There is no part of the country so vitally affected by this problem and I am very disappointed that the Government have not made a more explicit and satisfactory arrangement.
§ Mr. GLYN-JONESThe Committee will make a mistake if they look at the Clause simply as one enabling pooling arrangements to be made. We are face to face with this casual labour difficulty, and this Clause seems to me the only alternative from removing all casual labour front insurance. Then you have the difficulty of deciding who is a casual labourer. I support this proposal mainly because I understand that under it we are giving 3019 the Commissioners power to make special arrangements for all casuals. I would warn the Government, if such warning is necessary, that even if they deal with all the casual problem which can be dealt with in masses and which can be suitably dealt with under pooling arrangements, they have then left a very large number of people who are casually employed in individual capacities or in groups which cannot be pooled. I hope it will be found that under the powers we are here giving to the Commissioners it will be possible to arrange for the special treatment of the individual casual or the casual not grouped in particular trades or in sufficient masses to enable a pooling arrangement to be made. The only other observation I have to make is that I think there is a great deal too much expected of the Insurance Act in this matter of casual labour. The real difficulty of casual labour is not an insurance problem at all. You cannot insure what people have not normally got. The principle of the Insurance Act is to provide that a person who normally earns what I hope is a living wage will get something approaching it when he is sick. If a person is so unfortunately situated that he only gets work a few days a week you cannot expect him to pay 4d. to provide for himself when he is sick, in order that he may receive a larger sum than he earns when he is well. That is a problem with which we shall have to deal outside Insurance altogether. I hope that the working of this Clause will provide us with the data which will enable us to deal with that problem.
§ Mr. O'GRADYThe hon. Member opposite (Mr. Harry Lawson) was hardly fair to hon. Members sitting upon these benches who represent labour. We did not accept the scheme blindly, neither did we accept the Clause in the Bill blindly. It has been a matter of very serious and lengthy negotiation to get the best possible terms in the Clause as between those of us interested in this matter, both in the House and outside, and the Government itself. The first point I would make is that there is no scheme in the Clause itself at all. I am glad that that is so. If there were a scheme, I frankly say that I should oppose this Clause with all the vehemence of which I am capable. I support it because of its elasticity, and because, for the first time in the history of casual labour, it proposes to do something to meet the views of the Dockers' Union and the Trans- 3020 port Workers' Union and the employers in dealing with casual labour so far as it can be dealt with under the Insurance Act. I should very strongly object to the Commissioners making schemes or suggesting them upon their own initiative. This Clause, in the first place, enables them to get the direct views of those concerned, including the employers, and, secondly, provides that the Order must be laid upon the Table so that those of us in the House of Commons who speak for casual labour can raise objections and carry the objections so far that subsequently an inquiry must be instituted into the matter. It gives us all the opportunities in that length of time to deal with casual labour, and I hope it will subsequently lead to the decasualisation of labour at the London Docks.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYUpon the general discussion I should like to say a word or two. I think we shall have to watch very carefully any schemes that are made under this Clause. I heartily agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for East Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) on that subject. I am one of those who take the view that the casual character of some branches of certain industries amounts to a disease of industry. It is not the business of Parliament, in connection with any Act, insurance or other, to provide machinery to make casual labour impossible or to perpetuate it. From that point of view I am one who has grave doubts as to what Labour Exchanges are doing. The same point arises there as arises here—ought we to discourage casual labour or encourage it by making schemes which specially fit themselves and suit themselves to the deplorable conditions in certain industries? This point is a very important one, and I venture to utter the view here because I think it is very important indeed that these schemes should be very carefully watched. My hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. W. Pearce) said a few words which I think were of great importance. They included an observation that the employers were prepared to pay more. I think the Government would be well advised to take note of that declaration.
§ Mr. PEARCEI am sure my hon. Friend does not wish to misrepresent me. What I said was that the employers would desire to pay more rather than have more trouble.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONIs that an authorised statement?
§ Mr. PEARCENo, it is not authorised.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYIt is a plea for simplicity, and that is the plea I am making. I suggest to the Government that in connection with these schemes a careful watch should be kept upon them. There is only one final solution to this matter, and that is to penalise employers who create this disease of industry.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONWhat disease?
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYThe disease of casual employment, which is a disease of industry. The only way to discourage and abolish it is to penalise the employer, and you can most effectually do that by making the employer responsible for the whole of the contributions. If that were done the whole thing would straighten itself out. In a great many trades casual, intermittent labour is quite unnecessary, and employers in the trade so penalised would quickly make arrangements by virtue of which the ordinary provisions of the Act would apply to them, and they would escape the penalisation. I earnestly hope these few words will be borne in mind by those responsible not only for proposing the Clause, but for watching the schemes which were made under it.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONWill the discussion that we have now had rule out of order a now Clause dealing with the cutting of casual labour out of the Bill altogether?
§ Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKI hope the Government will not pay too much attention to the hope expressed by the hon. Member (Mr. W. Pearce) that the Commissioners would not attempt to bring the employers into one pool. There is a horrible welter of unemployment and misery and distress in the East End of London at present and I am told that there are at least 10,000 people turned away every day from the calling on places. I am not an authority on the subject but I am in touch with those who are and they assure me that there can be no hope of improving the conditions there until the perpetual inflow of casual labour is stopped by some such registration scheme as exists at Liverpool now. I hope if a scheme is approved of by the representatives of the dockers no body of employers will be allowed to stand in the way. The Government has held the ring for the Port of London Authority and Lord Devonport through the strike and since 3022 the strike in standing by and doing nothing. Although they are under a statutory obligation to decasualise labour they have stood by and done nothing and I hope and trust that the Commissioners will have the power to bring the Port of London Authority into this scheme if such a scheme is approved by the workers and a majority of the employers' representatives.
§ The CHAIRMANIn reply to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), the substance of his new Clause is not prejudiced by this discussion.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI want to ask the Government one question. Have the Insurance Commissioners under this Clause power to cut casual labour out of the Bill altogether? Have they the power to make them non-insured persons?
§ Mr. MASTERMANNo, I do not think they have power to do it under the Clause and it would be a disastrous step to take.
§ Dr. ADDISONI should like to congratulate and support the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck). I quite agree with him, as one who has been very closely in touch with this question in the East End, that a great deal of pooling is quite possible among employers in certain sections of employment and I see no reason why it should not be adopted in the East End. The point I wanted to make in respect of what the hon. Member (Mr. Harry Lawson) said, is that there is a very important thing in the Clause which he has perhaps overlooked. It is that where contributions are payable day by day, the employed contributors' contribution shall not exceed 1d. That does not leave it absolutely elastic for the Commissioners to do anything they like, but it cuts away the ground from under one of the chief grievances which casual labourers complain of in the East End. If a man gets one day's work a week he is deducted 4d. Xs this Clause stands he can only, at most, be deducted 1d. Perhaps the hon. Member has omitted to read that, which I know was deliberately inserted in the Clause and which is a very valuable provision and goes far to remove some of the grievances.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI should not have risen if it had not been for an obiter dictum on the part of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He said that the Commissioners would not have power in virtue of the provisions of this Clause, to leave certain 3023 classes of casual labour out altogether. I do not know whether Le has legal advice to that effect, but I do not myself read the Clause as having that interpretation, and if it has that interpretation it will run counter to the Exemptions Clause of Schedule 1 of the principal Act.
§ Mr. MASTERMANOn the best legal interpretation I can obtain at the moment they have no idea of modifying or overriding the general provisions of the Act as to casual labour. I will look into it, and, if necessary, bring up words on Report.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI very much agree with what my hon. Friend (Mr. Harry Lawson) said with regard to this. The Government have put this Clause forward as an attempt to deal with casual labour. It is an attempt to shift on to the Commissioners the obligation to deal with the problem of casual labour. What they have done is this: they have taken for a year contributions from people who can ill afford to make them, and, during the whole of that time, they have failed to give them any benefits. Now, instead of facing the fact that a large number of these people are uninsurable, that they are trying to give insurance for those who are uninsurable, and that the result of their efforts is to make them pay contributions without giving them benefit, they are shifting the burden of finding a scheme upon the Insurance Commissioners. I am not going to oppose this Clause. We have some security given us in the House of Commons that when the Commissioners have done their part of the work, we shall have another opportunity of reviewing what they have done. I only wish them luck, but I think the speech of the Secretary to the Admiralty was a lamentable admission of the feeling of want of responsibility by a Government which causes people so poor to contribute without first having secured them benefit.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe hon. Member is doing so well in general that I am sure none of us grudge his little conclusions on every Clause explaining how foolish the Government are in carrying it out. As for the rest, I only want to thank the Committee for the way they have accepted this Clause. We do not expect to change Heaven and earth through it, but we know that employers in East London are very anxious to try and see if some such scheme 3024 can be obtained, and so are the employed. We shall certainly consult both employers I and employed, as in agricultural districts, and we hope at least some schemes may be made to deal with a problem of extraordinary difficulty.
§ Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI beg to move, "That the Committee do continue to sit this day notwithstanding the sitting of the House."
§ Question put, and agreed to.